News from the Left

jjohn on 2002-07-16T02:52:14

Ever feel like a Lotus eater? After reading a few of these tidbits, you might.

Overfishing has driven the cod to virtually vanish from the North Sea, conservationists say.

--BBC News

Perhaps the most important taboo is the longevity of the United States as both a terrorist state and a haven for terrorists. That the US is the only state on record to have been condemned by the World Court for international terrorism (in Nicaragua) and has vetoed a UN Security Council resolution calling on governments to observe international law, is unmentionable.

--an extract from John Pilger

What’s not in dispute is that Sudan government officials forced Osama bin Laden to leave their country in 1996. Or that the Al Shifa factory had been purchased by a Sudanese businessman five months before the missile attack -- a fact that was unknown to the U.S. at the time it targeted the plant.

Three years after the U.S. government may have killed and injured innocent people on foreign soil in a misguided "retaliation against terrorism," media voices are again calling for a quick and forceful reprisal.

--International Socialist Organization

Gosh, that's all a little too heavy for me. Time for a dandelion break.

---

"news"

pudge on 2002-07-18T21:45:40

Perhaps the most important taboo is the longevity of the United States as both a terrorist state and a haven for terrorists. That the US is the only state on record to have been condemned by the World Court for international terrorism (in Nicaragua) and has vetoed a UN Security Council resolution calling on governments to observe international law, is unmentionable.

The only reason they are the "only one" is because such a court would never ever go after one of the real terrorist states. That Iraq has not been condemned by the World Court for international terrorism is at least as interesting as, if not more interesting than, that the US has been.

And yes, the US vetoed a resolution which would have been unconstitutional and unreasonable for the US to accept. Under such circumstances, a veto was the right thing to do. Calling on everyone to observe international law sounds like a fine idea, but the problem is that no US citizen is obligated to follow international law while in the United States, unless that law is specifically adopted by the U.S. Congress. So such a resolution could have no legal force in the US.

Further, even if it could, it would be unreasonable. The reason the US is the "only one" to be condemned by the World Court, the reason the US will not accept the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, the reason the last UN Security Council resolution having to do with Arab-Israeli conflicts that was critical of Arab states was over 50 years ago, the reason the US was removed from the UN Human Rights commission in favor of Sudan, is because these bodies are largely anti-America and anti-Israel. We cannot trust them. It is unreasonable therefore to submit to them (apart from being illegal without Congressional support, as noted above).

Re:"news"

jjohn on 2002-07-18T23:47:11

I was wondering how long it was going to take you to bite. :-D

The last two links selected can safely be called extreme Left views. It is interesting to note that Noam Chomsky (whose 9-11 book I'm currently reading) and Wallerstein both see the extreme Left as discredited (and presumably consider themselves apart from that crowd).

It appears that you assume that the UN is anti-American and therefore their condemnation is illegimate. Chomsky and Wallerstein seem to believe that bad US foreign policy is to blame and take the UN debacle as evidence of US guilt.

I think the truth is somewhere in between.

I think there have been many instances where US foreign policy has been needlessly brutal and ill-considered. Where's the elegance in that? The US has also been responsible for a lot of good. Where would Europe be without the Marshall Plan or Japan without US reconstruction efforts? Although it is easy too, let's not forget about the Peace Core and the Red Cross.

It's probably unwise not to acknowledge that anti-American sentiment is rooted in part in US foreign policy. One could also cogently argue that the US is the target of envy by less prosperous countries. The US involvement in training Nicaraguan "freedom fighters" (nee terrorists) in the 1980s is what the UN condemned.

Look very carefully at the case, because it sends a mixed message about trying to fight terrorism by only legal means as Nicaragua did.

All things being equal, I'd be happy for the US to turn in its "superpower" badge to become more like Northern Europe. Shorter work hours, better health care, less hate.

Re:"news"

pudge on 2002-07-19T03:17:07

It appears that you assume that the UN is anti-American and therefore their condemnation is illegimate. Chomsky and Wallerstein seem to believe that bad US foreign policy is to blame and take the UN debacle as evidence of US guilt.

I think the truth is somewhere in between.

The point is that it is nearly self-evident, that by any possible measure what the US did in Nicaragua pales in comparison to what other nations, like Iraq, like Afghanistan, have done. Where's the condemnation? And it is also self-evident that Israel is not deserving of the lopsided condemnation the UN offers it.

This is not to say the US or Israel is perfect, or that they do nothing wrong, or that they aren't as bad as the next guy. But even assuming the furthest left I could reasonably go without checking my brain at the door, they are not that much worse than the next guy that they deserve such lopsided treatment. That's my point.